Kerala High Court
Muhammed Musthafa vs Kuzhalmannam Grama Panchayat on 24 October, 2019
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 2ND KARTHIKA, 1941
WP(C).No.18406 OF 2019(A)
PETITIONER:
MUHAMMED MUSTHAFA,
S/O. LATE HANEEFA, PADAPPANAL, KUTHANUR POST,
ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT
BY ADVS.
SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K.
SRI.LIJU. M.P
RESPONDENTS:
1 KUZHALMANNAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
KUZHALMANNAM POST, ALATHUR TALUK,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, - 678 702
REP. BY THE SECRETARY
2 THE SECRETARY,
KUZHALMANNAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
KUZHALMANNAM POST, ALATHUR TALUK,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 702
SRI.K.K.RAJEEV
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
24.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.18406 OF 2019 2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court praying that the 1 st respondent - Grama Panchayat be directed to number the construction made by him on the strength of a valid building permit and also to issue him Occupancy Certificate. The petitioner says that when no action was taken on these applications, he was constrained to approach this Court by filing this writ petition; but that pending this lis, the Panchayat had issued Ext.P9 asking him to produce an order from the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) under the provisions of Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. ("Paddy Land Act" for short). The petitioner says that this requirement made through Ext.P9 is untenable, because he has already obtained Ext.P2 order from the RDO under the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order ("KLU Order" for short) as early as on 18.04.2005. He thus prays that this Court set aside Ext.P9 and direct the Panchayat to number the building as also to issue him the Occupancy Certificate.
2. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1 st respondent Panchayat submits that Ext.P9 has been issued because, as per Ext.P2 order, issued by the RDO under the KLU Order, the petitioner has been permitted WP(C).No.18406 OF 2019 3 to construct only a residential building and not a commercial building, as has now been done. He says that, therefore, the petitioner must now invoke the jurisdiction of the RDO again and obtain orders under Section 27A of the Paddy Land Act. He thus prays that this writ petition be dismissed.
3. Even when I hear the learned Counsel for the Panchayat as afore, it is without doubt that the petitioner had already obtained Ext.P2 order from the RDO under the KLU Order as early as in the year 2005. It is already settled by this Court through a series of judgments, including Shahul Hameed v. Principal Secretary, Local Self Government [2018 (1) KLT 1008], that when a proceedings under the KLU Order is issued by the competent RDO, it enures to the benefit of the applicant to use the property for any purpose other than paddy cultivation, including for construction of residential or commercial building. Merely because Ext.P2 contains a restrictive clause that the said permission applies only for the purpose of residential construction, it does not mean that the petitioner cannot use the same for any other purposes. By its very nature, an order under the KLU Order is expected and intended to allow the owner of the property the liberty to use it for any other purpose other than paddy cultivation, and as has been already declared by this Court, the restrictive clause in Ext.P2 order cannot prejudice the petitioner. WP(C).No.18406 OF 2019 4
4. In the afore circumstances and since the petitioner is already enjoying Ext.P2 order from the RDO under the KLU Order, I do not deem it necessary that he must now again approach the said Authority and seek an order under Section 27A of the Paddy Land Act.
5. Consequentially, I order this writ petition and direct the 1 st respondent - Grama Panchayat to consider the petitioner's application for numbering the building and for issuance of Occupancy Certificate, in terms of law and after following all other necessary and statutory requirements and conditions, on the basis of Ext.P2 order obtained by the petitioner in the year 2005.
The afore exercise shall be done by the 1 st respondent as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE sru WP(C).No.18406 OF 2019 5 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.878/2000 OF SRO, KUZHALMANNAM EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD DATED 18-04-2005 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY THE BUILDING PERMIT DATED 24- 05-2016 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF DEED NO.880/2000 OF SRO, KUZHALMANNAM.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.3A/19A DATED 07-03-2019.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.3A/19B DATED 07-03-2019.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED ON 12-12- 2017, SUBMITTING EXHIBIT R2(A).
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED FOR REGULARISATION OF CONSTRUCTION.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 04.10.2019 PASSED ON BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE PLAN SUBMITTED ON COMPLETION OF THE CONSTRUCTION BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE PANCHAYAT.